Bangalore District Court
Gurusiddappa vs Kennametal Widia India Limited on 5 June, 2025
KABC010093172007
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-8)
PRESENT
SRI. B.DASARATHA., B.A., LL.B.
XI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF JUNE, 2025
O.S.No.786/2007
Plaintiffs: 1. Sri. Gurusiddappa
Since dead by his LRs;
1(a). Smt. Jayalakshmamma,
W/o. Late Gurusiddappa,
Aged about 71 years.
1(b). Sri. B.G.Prakasha,
Since dead by his LRs;
1(b)(i). Smt. G.V.Sowbhagya,
W/o. Late B.G.Prakash,
Aged about 46 years.
1(b)(ii). Kumari Varuni Prakash,
D/o. Late B.G.Prakash,
Aged about 21 years.
2 O.S.No.786/2007
1(b)(iii). Sri. P.Chinthan,
S/o. Late B.G.Prakash,
Aged about 18 years.
Plaintiffs No.1(b)(i) to 1(b)(iii) are
Residing at "Vijetha", 8th Cross,
1st Main Road, Someshwarapuram,
Tumkur Town, Tumkur.
1(c). Sri. B.G.Anantharaju,
S/o. Late Gurusiddappa,
Aged about 38 years.
1(d). Sri. B.G.Nataraju,
S/o. Late Gurusiddappa,
Aged about 33 years.
1(e). Smt. B.G.Pushpalatha,
D/o. Late Gurusiddappa,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.265,
Jayachamarajendra Road,
Vijayapura, Devanahalli Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
1(f). Smt. B.G.Bhagyamma
@ B.G.Bhagyavathi,
D/o. Late Gurusiddappa,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at Harohalli Village,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
1(g). Kumari B.G.Ambika,
D/o. Late Gurusiddappa,
Aged about 28 years.
3 O.S.No.786/2007
1(h). Smt.B.G.Radhamma
@ B.G.Radha
@ B.G.Radhamani,
D/o. Late Gurusiddappa,
Since Dead by her LRs;
1(h)(i). Kumari Bindu R.,
D/o. Late B.M.Rajanna,
Aged about 24 years.
1(h)(ii). Kumari Arpitha R.,
D/o. Late B.M.Rajanna,
Aged about 22 years.
1(h)(iii). Kumari Anusha R.,
D/o. Late B.M.Rajanna,
Aged about 19 years.
Plaintiffs No.1(a), 1(c), 1(d), 1(g),
1(h)(i) to 1(h)(iii) are residing at
No.349, 4th Cross, Bagalagunte,
Bangalore - 560 073.
(P1, P1(b), P1(h) - Dead
P1(a), P1(b)(i) to (iii), P1(c) to 1(g) &
P1(h)(i) to (iii) by Adv. Sri.T.Seshagiri Rao)
Vs.
Defendants: 1. Kennametal Widia India Ltd.,
Tumkur Road, 10th Mile,
Bagalagunte,
Bangalore - 560 073,
Represented by its Personnel Officer/
Administrative Officer.
2. Sri. M.Keshavrao,
S/o. N.Ramadasappa,
4 O.S.No.786/2007
Aged about 86 year,
Residing at Manipal Village,
Vatada Hosahalli Post,
Gowribidanur Taluk,
Kolar District.
3. Sri. H.Narasimhaiah,
S/o. Late Hanumanthappa,
Aged about 66 years,
Residing at No.693, 9th 'A' Cross,
West of Chord Road, II Stage,
Bangalore - 560 086.
4. Karnataka Power Transmission
Corporation Limited,
Rept. by its Managing Director,
BESCOM, K.R.Circle,
Bangalore - 560 001.
(D1 by Adv. Smt. Shilpa Shah
D2 & D3 - Exparte
D4 by Adv. H.V.Devaraju)
Date of institution of the suit : 22.01.2007
Nature of the suit : Declaration & Injunction
Date of commencement of
Recording of the evidence : 27.09.2022
Date on which the Judgment
was pronounced : 05.06.2025
Total Duration : Years Months Days
18 04 13
XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
5 O.S.No.786/2007
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit seeking:
(a) Declaration of absolute ownership and possession of 12 guntas in Survey No.62, Bagalagunte Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk i.e., suit schedule property.
(b) Declaration that the General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 25.01.1996 and sale deed dated 17.12.2004 are void and non-binding.
(c) Permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with their possession.
(d) Removal of the power plant and compound wall on the suit property.
2. The brief averments of the plaint is as follows:-
The land bearing Survey No.62, Bagalagunte Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 12 guntas out of original 1 acre 22 guntas, after 1 acre 10 guntas was acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, morefully described in the suit schedule. The plaintiffs claim absolute ownership of 12 guntas of land in Survey No.62, left unacquired after KIADB acquired 1 acre 10 guntas for Kennametal's Factory. Supported by revenue documents i.e., survey records, tax receipts, mutation entries and nil encumbrance certificate. Fraudulently claimed the land was converted and obtained a false CMC Khatha No.595. Installed a power plant on the suit property without permission, colluding 6 O.S.No.786/2007 with defendants 2 and 3. Erected a compound wall around the 12 guntas, trespassing on plaintiffs' land. The defendants 2 and
3 entered into an Agreement of Sale in the year 1995-96 for 8 guntas, which was canceled due to their failure to register the sale deed. Allegedly facilitated fraudulent transactions for Kennametal. The defendant No.4 leased 8 guntas from Kennametal in the year 2002, despite no valid title, to set up an electrical sub-station.
2(a). The General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 25.01.1996, allegedly executed by Gurusiddappa in favour of Narasimhaiah, is claimed to be forged. Gurusiddappa, illiterate and unable to sign fluently, could not have executed it. The sale deed dated 17.12.2004, executed through the GPA, is void ab initio as it relies on the forged GPA and references the non- existent property CMC Khatha No.595. The plaintiffs assert that Survey No.62 remains an agricultural land, not converted.
2(b). The plaintiffs approached Kennametal for jobs for Gurusiddappa's sons - Anantharaju and Nataraju, which was promised but not fulfilled, as most of their land was acquired for Kennametal's benefit. The defendants' actions are illegal and the suit is not barred by limitation or non-joinder of parties.
2(c). The cause of action arose on 05.11.2005, when the plaintiffs issued the legal notice to Kennametal, demanding removal of the power plant and on 13.12.2005 upon receiving 7 O.S.No.786/2007 Kennametal's reply. On these grounds, plaintiff prays to decree the suit.
3. In response to the suit summons, the defendant No.1 and 4 appeared before the court through their respective Advocates. Inspite of service of suit summons, the defendant No.2 and 3 remained absent, placed exparte. The defendant No.4 did not file any written statement. The brief averments of written statement and additional written statement of defendant No.1 is as follows:-
The suit is false, frivolous and filed with malice because Kennametal refused jobs to Gurusiddappa's sons, who were deemed unsuitable. The plaintiffs own only 4 guntas, not 12 guntas, as 8 guntas written statement schedule property was sold to Kennametal.
3(a). In the year 1995-96, Gurusiddappa agreed to sell 8 guntas to Kennametal for ₹2,50,000/-. An Agreement of Sale was executed in favour of Keshavrao and Narasimhaiah, who were Kennametal's employees for convenience. Gurusiddappa received ₹1,60,000/- initially, ₹10,000/- later and the balance ₹80,000/-, after which he executed the GPA on 25.01.1996 in favour of Narasimhaiah. Gurusiddappa handed over possession and original title deeds in 1996. The registered sale deed was executed on 17.12.2004 in Kennametal's favour, validly through the GPA.8 O.S.No.786/2007
3(b). In the year 2002, Kennametal leased 8 guntas to Karnataka Electricity Board (KEB, now KPTCL), which set up an electrical sub-station. The sub-station's installation faced litigation (W.P.8453-8455/1996, dismissed) and objections, but was upheld by the District Magistrate's Order dated 23.04.1997. The sub-station is a "Prohibited Place" under the Official Secrets Act and Kennametal cannot shift it.
3(c). The defendant No.1 denies forging the GPA or fabricating documents. The plaintiffs are estopped from denying the transaction after receiving full consideration. The CMC Khatha No.595 was validly obtained after conversion and the plaintiffs' claim that Survey No.62 is an agricultural land is false. Gurusiddappa's illiteracy is not within Kennametal's knowledge and the plaintiffs' claim of forged signatures is baseless, requiring strict proof.
3(d). The suit is barred by limitation, as the plaintiffs were aware of the sub-station since 1996-2002, but filed the suit in the year 2007. The suit suffers from non-joinder of KPTCL, which possesses 8 guntas. The plaintiffs' attempt to cancel the GPA in 2005 is invalid, as the sale deed was already executed in 2004. The amended plaint introduces a new cause of action, which is time-barred. On these grounds, defendant No.1 prays for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues and additional issues have been framed for determination:-
9 O.S.No.786/2007ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the interference of defendant?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the permanent injunction as sought?
4. Whether the suit is properly valued and court fee paid is sufficient?
5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary and proper party?
6. What Order or Decree ?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the General Power of Attorney dated 25.01.1996 is a forged and fabricated document?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the Sale Deed dated 17.12.2004 is not binding on them?
3. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the reliefs sought by the plaintiff are barred by limitation?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant No.1 is in unauthorised possession over the suit schedule property?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of suit schedule property as sought?
10 O.S.No.786/20075. After settlement of issues, one of the legal heirs of plaintiff by name B.G.Nataraju has entered into the witness box as PW-1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24 were marked through him. On behalf of defendant No.1, General Manager-Legal & Company Secretary and Senior Manager-Legal, Secretarial & Compliance Officer of defendant No.1 have entered into the witness box as DW-1 and DW-2 and Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.27 were marked through them.
6. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 have filed the written arguments.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In the affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the affirmative.
Issue No.3: In the affirmative.
Issue No.4: Partly in the affirmative.
Issue No.5: In the negative.
Addl. Issue No.1: In the affirmative.
Addl. Issue No.2: In the affirmative.
Addl. Issue No.3: In the negative.
Addl. Issue No.4: In the affirmative.
Addl. Issue No.5: In the affirmative.
Issue No.6: As per final order below
for the following:
REASONS
8. Issue No.1: It is the arguments of defendant No.1 that the plaintiffs failed to produce the original Sale Deed dated 22.08.1974. Ex.P-1 is the certified copy, raising doubts about their title. The defendant No.1 holds the original Ex.D-7, 11 O.S.No.786/2007 suggesting Gurusiddappa parted with it upon executing the GPA. The plaintiffs were not in possession since 2000 as per Ex.P-16, admitting defendant No.1's transformer installation, and the suit filed in the year 2007 is belated.
9. PW-1's admission that defendant No.4 built a sub- station confirms the plaintiffs' lack of possession. The plaintiffs' title is established by Ex.P.1 - certified copy of Sale Deed of the year 1974, corroborated by revenue records - Ex.P-6 to P-14:
tax receipts, RTCs and Krishi Pass Book. The defendant No.1's possession of Ex.D-7 original Sale Deed does not negate title, as it could have been handed over for the Agreement of Sale Ex.D-8, D-6 and D-1 without transferring ownership. Non- production of original is explained by PW-1's ignorance of its whereabouts, which is plausible given Gurusiddappa's illiteracy and age.
10. Ex.P-16's reference to the transformer of the year 2000 indicates trespass, not lawful possession by defendant No.1. Revenue records - Ex.P-9 to P-13 show Gurusiddappa's possession until 2002 and the plaintiffs' suit of the year 2007 seeks recovery of possession, consistent with dispossession in 2002. PW-1's admission about the sub-station acknowledges the trespass, not a relinquishment of rights.
11. Under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, declaration is discretionary but warranted where title is proven. The plaintiffs' documentary evidence - Ex.P-1, P-6 to P-14 12 O.S.No.786/2007 outweighs defendant No.1's reliance on Ex.D-7, which lacks context without the GPA. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in Subra Mukharjee vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.; (2000 (3) SCC 312) places the burden on defendant No.1 to prove the GPA's genuineness, which they have not done.
12. The plaintiffs have proved title, as revenue records and Ex.P-1 are sufficient. Possession was lost due to trespass in the year 2002, which the suit seeks to recover. Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
13. Additional Issue No.1: - It is the arguments of defendant No.1 that the GPA was filed with the written statement on 07.07.2007 as Document No.5 and its photocopy was bonafide intended as secondary evidence, but the plaintiffs opposed it. Gurusiddappa admitted the GPA's execution in Ex.P-16 - legal notice dated 05.11.2005 and his inaction in lodging any criminal complaint estops the legal heirs from alleging forgery. The plaintiffs' claim that Gurusiddappa was illiterate and could not sign in English is false, as Ex.D.10 - Letter dated 22.04.1994 and Ex.D.26 - Agreement dated 07.12.1979 are in English with his signatures. The burden is on the plaintiffs to prove forgery, but they rely on defendant No.1's evidence without summoning the GPA or examining witnesses.
14. The case of defendant No.1 cannot be accepted because of defendant No.1's failure to produce the original GPA, despite claiming custody during the Sale Deed's 13 O.S.No.786/2007 registration Ex.D-11, is fatal. This court rejected the photocopy 11.09.2023 and allowed I.A.No.14 on 31.08.2024, noting adverse inference for non-production under Section 114(g), Indian Evidence Act. DW-2's vague testimony no knowledge of loss, no FIR and the discarded affidavit evidence of DW-1 further weaken their case.
15. Admission and reference to a "document" dated 25.01.1996 in Ex.P-16 is ambiguous and does not explicitly admit the GPA's execution. It mentions cancellation of agreements and other documents through a notice dated 12.09.2005, which is not produced, suggesting Gurusiddappa disputed the GPA. The plaintiffs' pleadings clarify this as a forged document, not an admission. PW-1's testimony that Gurusiddappa was illiterate and signed only in Kannada is supported by signature discrepancies Ex.D-1, D-6, D-8 in contrast to GPA photocopy. Ex.D-10 and D-26's authenticity is questionable, as Ex.D-26 pertains to Sy. No.76/1, not Sy. No.62, and Ex.D-10's English content does not prove Gurusiddappa's ability to sign in English. The GPA, being in English, is inconsistent with his practice.
16. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Subra Mukharjee ( supra) requires defendant No.1, relying on the GPA, to prove its genuineness first. Their failure to produce it shifts the burden to them as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Ramachandra vs. Sunanda;
14 O.S.No.786/20072016 SCC Online Kar 2851. The plaintiffs' evidence regarding illiteracy, signature mismatch, non-production sufficiently alleges forgery, especially with the adverse inference drawn by this court. Gurusiddappa's inaction does not estop the legal heirs as fraud vitiates all acts as held in Rani Aloka Dudhoria vs. Goutam Dudhoria; (2009) 13 SCC 569.
17. The plaintiffs have proved forgery of GPA, given defendant No.1's non-production, inspite of court Orders dated 31.08.2024 and evidence of illiteracy/signature mismatch. The defendant's reliance on Ex.P-16 and Ex.D-10/D-26 is weak and unconvincing. Hence, Additional Issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
18. Additional Issue No.2:- It is the arguments of defendant that Ex.D-11 original Sale Deed is valid, registered with an endorsement that Gurusiddappa was represented by the GPA Holder - defendant No. 3. It is the further argument of defendant No.1 that as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Prem Singh vs. Birbal; (2006 (5) SCC 353) presumes a registered document's validity, which the plaintiffs have not rebutted. The plaintiffs' failure to produce even a certified copy of Ex.D-11 shows reliance on defendant No.1's evidence, weakening their case. The LRs' challenge to the Sale Deed contradicts Gurusiddappa's inaction, as he did not dispute it despite receiving Ex.P.18 - defendant No.1's reply notice.
15 O.S.No.786/200719. In rebuttal the Sale Deed's validity hinges on the GPA. If the GPA is forged, the Sale Deed is void ab initio (in the decision of Ramachandra (supra), as defendant No.3 lacked authority to execute it. Prem Singh (supra) supports a presumption of validity, but this is rebutted by non-production of the GPA and evidence of forgery.
20. The evidence of plaintiffs that non-production of the certified copy of Ex.D-11 is immaterial, as defendant No.1 produced the original and the plaintiffs' case rests on its invalidity due to a forged GPA, not its existence. Their pleadings and PW-1's testimony consistently challenge the Sale Deed's binding nature.
21. The Gurusiddappa's inaction and Gurusiddappa's failure to challenge the Sale Deed during his lifetime does not bind the legal heirs, as fraud allows posthumous challenges (Rani Aloka Dudhoria) (supra). The suit and amendment were filed after discovering the Sale Deed, within limitation. The Sale Deed references CMC Khatha No.595, but RTCs - Ex.P.9 to P.13 show Sy. No.62 as an agricultural land until 2001-02 and Ex.D-27 is objected to, casting doubt on the non-agricultural status of the land in 2004. The plaintiffs are able prove the Sale Deed is not binding, as it relies on a potentially forged GPA, and defendant No.1's evidence Ex.D-11, D-27 is undermined by non-production and documentary inconsistencies. Hence, Additional Issue No.2 is answered in the affirmative.
16 O.S.No.786/200722. Additional Issue No.3:- It is the arguments of defendant that the GPA dated 25.01.1996 and dispossession in the year 2000/2002 triggered limitation. The suit filed in the year 2007 and amendment introduced in the year 2012 challenging the GPA/Sale Deed are beyond the 3-year period under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. In the decision of Mallamma vs. Kalsammanavara Kallamma (MANU /SC/1395/ 2024), Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that suits for declaration and possession, where title is lost, have a 3-year limitation, not 12 years. The plaintiffs' claim of a 12-year limit from dispossession in the year 2002 is frivolous, as limitation runs from the GPA's execution in the year 1996.
23. The arguments of the defendant cannot be accepted because if the GPA and Sale Deed are forged, they are void ab initio and non-est [Prem Singh case (supra)], requiring no cancellation. No limitation applies to challenge such documents, as they convey no title [Ramachandra's case (supra)).
24. For applicability of Article 65 : For possession, Article 65 provides a 12-year limit from when possession becomes adverse from 2002, per transformer installation. The suit is filed in the year 2007 and amendment introduced in the year 2012 are within this period (State of Maharashtra vs. Pravin Jethalal Kamdar; 2000 (3) SCC 460 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court).
25. The Sale Deed dated 17.12.2004 was discovered in 2004-2005 as per Ex.P-16, P-18. The suit filed on 22.01.2007 is 17 O.S.No.786/2007 within 3 years under Article 58 of Limitation Act. The GPA's discovery through the written statement on 07.07.2007 and amendment introduced on 27.08.2012 are arguably delayed. but permissible, as fraud extends limitation under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
26. The decision of Mallavva ( supra) applies to cancellation of valid sale deeds, not void documents. Here, the plaintiffs seek a declaration of non-bindingness due to forgery, aligning with decision of Prem Singh and State of Maharashtra (supra). Hence, the suit is filed within limitation, as the GPA/Sale Deed are void, as such limitation is not applicable and no limitation and possession under article 65 and declaration under Article 58 claims are timely from 2002 and 2004, respectively. Hence, Additional issue No.3 is answered in the negative.
27. Issue No.4: It is the argument of defendant that the plaintiffs paid insufficient court fees of ₹50/- based on agricultural land valuation under Section 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, but Sy. No.62 is non- agricultural land CMC Khata 595, Ex.D-12 to D-22.
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh vs. Randhir Singh (AIR 2010 SC 2807) requires court fees on market value for declaration and possession by non-executants. The plaintiffs' failure to pay fees for prayers (aa) and (ab) renders the plaint defective.
18 O.S.No.786/200729. I.A. No.1/19 filed under Section 11(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act r/w under Order XIV Rule 2 (2) and Section 151 of CPC by defendant No.1 was rejected vide Order dated 07.02.2022.
30. The contention of defendant No.1 cannot be accepted, because Ex.P-6 to P-14 i.e., tax receipts, RTCs, Krishi Pass Book confirm Sy. No.62's agricultural status until 2005-06. Ex.D-12 to D-22 tax receipts and Ex.D-15 CMC Form III are post-2004 and disputed, as RTCs Ex.P-9 to P-13 show no conversion. The plaintiffs' valuation under Section 7(2)(a) (25 times revenue) is correct for agricultural land.
31. Decision of Suhrid Singh Application: Suhrid Singh (supra) applies to non-executants seeking cancellation. Here, the plaintiffs claim the GPA/Sale Deed are void not requiring cancellation and fees for declaration is paid per Section 24(a). Prayers (aa) and (ab) are clarificatory, not new reliefs, as the original prayer for declaration encompasses them.
32. The learned counsel for plaintiffs during the course of his argument fairly conceded that plaintiff is required to pay court fees on the relief of possession. In view of the unequivocal admission by the plaintiffs, through their learned counsel that, they are liable to pay the court fee on the market value with regard to the relief of possession sought in the suit, this court hereby directs the plaintiffs to deposit the requisite 19 O.S.No.786/2007 court fee, as calculated based on the market value of the property in question. Non-payment for the relief of possession courts can direct additional payment rather than reject the plaint.
33. The suit is properly valued, as the plaintiffs' evidence supports agricultural status and court fee payment aligns with Section 24(a). For the relief of possession is concerned, the court may direct additional fees, if needed, rather than reject the plaint. Hence, Issue No.4 is answered partly in the affirmative.
34. Issue No.5:- It is the argument of defendant that the plaintiffs failed to serve the amended plaint on defendants No.2 to 4, violating Order I Rule 10(4) of CPC. Karthik Bhavikatti vs. S.Vidya Shaankar (2024:KHC:4890) holds that non-service abates proceedings against new defendants.
35. The suit is bad for non-joinder, as defendants No.2 and 3 were only served through newspaper publication for impleading and defendant No.4 appeared, but was not served the amended plaint.
36. The arguments of defendant No.1 cannot be accepted, because the plaintiffs impleaded defendants No.2 to 4 on 27.08.2018 and summons were issued. The defendants No.2 and 3 were served through newspaper publication dated 31.08.2013 and placed exparte on 08.01.2014. The defendant No.4 appeared, received the amended plaint and took time, but 20 O.S.No.786/2007 did not contest further. Order I Rule 10(4) is substantially complied with, as all defendants were notified.
37. The decision relied on by defendant No.1 in its written argument namely Karthik Bhavikatti involved no service to an original defendant post-amendment. Here, defendant No.1 was served and defendants No.2 to 4's non-participation does not abate the suit, as they are not indispensable parties for the main reliefs and declaration/possession is sought against defendant No.1.
38. The objection of defendant No.1 lacks merit, as no opposition was raised to the impleading, and the exparte status of defendants No.2 and 3 indicates their disinterest, not non- joinder. The suit cannot be dismissed for non-joinder, as the plaintiffs complied with impleading and service requirements, and defendants No.2 to 4's absence does not affect the main reliefs. Hence, Issue No.5 is answered in the negative.
39. Additional Issue No.4 & 5:- Since these issues are interlinked each other and requires common discussion, both these issues taken together for consideration.
40. It is the argument of defendant that the plaintiffs lost title after GPA of the year 1996 and Sale Deed of the year 2004, extinguishing rights. The possession of defendant No.1 is lawful through Ex.D-11 and the plaintiffs' failure to prove title negates possession claims. Ex.P-16 admits dispossession 21 O.S.No.786/2007 since 2000 and no action i.e., police complaint for 7 years shows acquiescence.
41. The contention of defendant No.1 cannot be accepted, because if the GPA and Sale Deed are void as per Additional Issues No.1 and 2, the possession of defendant No.1 since 2002 is trespass, as it lacks lawful authority (Ramachandra decision supra). Ex.P-6 to P-14 confirm plaintiffs' ownership/possession until 2002 and Ex.P-16's admission of trespass supports their claim.
42. As owners (Ex.P-1, P-6 to P-14), the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession under Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, against trespassers. The 12-year limitation under Article 65 from 2002 is met suit is filed in the year 2007 and amendment introduced in 2012. The 7-year gap (2000-2007) is explained by Gurusiddappa's illiteracy, discovery of fraud in the year 2004-2005 and legal action through Ex.P-16, in the year 2005) and suit filed in the year 2007. No acquiescence is inferred, as fraud extends limitation under Section 17 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiffs are able to prove unauthorized possession and entitlement to possession contingent on proving title and the GPA/Sale Deed's invalidity. Hence, Additional Issue No.4 and 5 are answered in the affirmative.
43. Issue No.2 & 3:- It is the argument of defendant that injunction cannot be granted against the true owner /defendant No.1, as per Ex.D-11. The lack of plaintiffs' possession since 22 O.S.No.786/2007 1996 and failure to prove interference negate these reliefs. Ex.P-16's admission of dispossession and lack of 12.09.2005 cancellation notice confirm the GPA's validity and defendant No.1's rights.
44. The contention of defendant No.1 cannot be accepted, because the plaintiffs' evidence - Ex.P-16, PW-1 testimony, Ex.P-2 to P-4 shows defendant No.1's transformer and KPTCL's sub-station as unauthorized interference since 2002, constituting trespass.
45. If the plaintiffs prove title and unauthorized possession, permanent injunction follows to prevent further interference. The defendant's claim as "true owner" fails since the GPA/Sale Deed are void.
46. The absence of the 12.09.2005 notice does not confirm the GPA's validity, as Ex.P-16 disputes the defendants' actions and non-production is not fatal given defendant No.1's failure to produce the GPA itself. Hence, the plaintiffs are able to prove interference and secure an injunction, contingent on proving title and unauthorized possession. Hence, Issue No.2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative.
47. Issue No.6: In view of the above discussions, this court proceed to pass the following:-
23 O.S.No.786/2007ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed.
The plaintiff is declared owner of suit schedule property. The GPA dated 25.01.1996 is declared forged, fabricated and void ab initio, non-binding.
The sale deed dated 17.12.2004 (Ex.D-11) is declared void ab initio and non-binding.
The plaintiff is entitled to possession of 8 guntas and defendant No.1 is directed to restore possession within 3 months, subject to proceedings involving defendant No.4 (KPTCL).
The permanent injunction restrains defendant No.1 from interfering with plaintiffs' possession post-restoration, except for KPTCL's sub-station.
Parties to bear their own costs, given partial success. Draw decree after the payment of court fee by the plaintiff on the relief of possession.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open court, on this the 5th day of June, 2025) (B.DASARATHA) XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiffs:
24 O.S.No.786/2007PW.1 : Sri.B.G.Nataraju List of documents exhibited for plaintiffs:
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 22.08.1974 Ex.P.2 : Gazette Publication Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of Re-Class Book Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of Tippani Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of Aakaarband Ex.P.6 to 8 : Tax Paid Receipts Ex.P.9 & 10 : Certified copy of Mutation Register Extracts Ex.P.11 to 13: 3 RTCs Ex.P.14 : Krushi Passbook Ex.P.15 : Certificate of Posting Ex.P.16 : Certified copy of Legal Notice dated 05.11.2005 Ex.P.17 : Postal Acknowledgment Ex.P.18 : Reply Notice dated 13.12.2005 Ex.P.19 : Letter dated 21.11.2005 Ex.P.20 & 21: Encumbrance Certificates Ex.P.22 : RTI Application Ex.P.23 : RTI Information Ex.P.24 : Death Certificate of Gurusiddappa List of witnesses examined for defendants:
DW.1 : Sri. Naveen Chandra Prakash
DW.2 : Sri. Aditya Kumar Jain
List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Ex.D.1 : Sale Agreement dated 25.04.1995 Ex.D.2 to 4 : Photographs Ex.D.5 : C.D. Ex.D.6 : Sale Agreement dated 19.11.1993 Ex.D.7 : Sale Deed dated 22.08.1974 Ex.D.8 : Agreement dated 18.11.1993 25 O.S.No.786/2007 Ex.D.9 : Office copy of Receipt dated 06.09.1995 Ex.D.10 : Notice Ex.D.11 : Registered Sale Deed dated 17.12.2004 Ex.D.12 to 14: 3 Tax Paid Receipts Ex.D.15 : Self-Assessment under Form No.III Ex.D.16 to 22: 7 Computer generated Tax Paid Receipts Ex.D.23 : Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex.D.24 : Extract of the Board Resolution dated 16.11.2018 Ex.D.25 : Board Resolution Ex.D.26 : Agreement of Sale dated 07.12.1979 Ex.D.27 : Area Sketch XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.
Digitally signed by DASARATHA DASARATHA B B Date:
2025.06.05 17:44:47 +0530